The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the plaint in a Civil Revision petition challenging the dismissal of an interim injunction application. The court found the revision lacked merit as supervisory jurisdiction does not permit re-evaluation of evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Civil Revision No.4988 of 2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.4988 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 19, 2011
Udai Singh and others
.....petitioners
v.
Mahabir and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.A.K.Singh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioners.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.19939-CII of 2011
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
C.R.No.4988 of 2011
Petitioners-plaintiffs have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 5.8.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide which appeal filed against order dated 29.7.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Narnaul, by respondents-defendants was accepted and the application for ad interim injunction order filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') by petitioners-plaintiffs was ordered to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and have gone through the whole record carefully including the orders passed by learned Courts below.
Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that present suit has been filed by petitioners-plaintiffs for a decree for
Civil Revision No.4988 of 2010 (O&M) -2-
declaration that they are owners in possession as co-sharers in the land in dispute comprised in killa no.292/1/1 measuring 15 marlas situated in Gair Mumkin Abadi of Village Nangal Chaudhary, Tehsil Narnaul. Alongwith the suit an application for ad interim injunction order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was also filed restraining respondents-defendants from raising any construction over the property in dispute in their possession as co-sharers without getting the same partitioned by metes and bounds.
Suit as well as application was contested by respondentsdefendants. Application was allowed by learned trial Court by placing reliance upon copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-79, wherein the present petitioners-plaintiffs have been recorded as co-sharers in possession of the land in dispute. However, learned appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by respondents-defendants by observing that though in the jamabandi, present petitioners-plaintiffs have been shown to be as co-owners in possession of the land in dispute, however, in view of various sale deeds placed on record, which were not incorporated in the jamabandi, petitionersplaintiffs are left with no right in the property in dispute.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitionersplaintiffs that they are co-owners in possession of the land in dispute as per entry in the jamabandi and hence, respondents-defendants have no right to raise construction over the portion in their possession without getting the same partitioned by metes and bounds. He has also placed reliance upon Maharwal Khewaji Trust (regd.) Faridkot v. Baldev Dass , 2005 AIR (SC) 104.
Law is well settled that at this stage, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact as to whether any irreparable loss would be
Civil Revision No.4988 of 2010 (O&M)
-3-
caused to petitioners-plaintiffs if ad interim injunction order is not granted, is to be seen.
In the present case in order to show prima facie case in their favour, petitioners-plaintiffs had placed on record copy of jamabandi wherein they have been recorded as co-owners in possession of the entire property in dispute. However, learned first appellate Court, i.e., learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, has discussed various sale deeds executed by co-owners including the present petitioners-plaintiffs, which were not incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 1973-74, according to which petitioners-plaintiffs are left with no right in the property in dispute. There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitionersplaintiffs that they are owners as per entry in the jamabandi.
Law is well settled that entries in the jamabandies are rebuttable one and respondents-defendants have been able to show various sale deeds, vide which property in dispute was sold by petitioners-plaintiffs. Hence, it cannot be said that they are left with any right in the property in dispute.
The total land was 57 marlas, as per jamabandi for the year 1966-67 comprised in khasra No.292/1. Out of this land Ganpat Mallu, Lakha, Jora and Bahadar sold 15 marlas of land vide sale deed No.2231 dated 13.3.1969. Thereafter 3 marlas of land was sold by Ganpat to Parbhu. Thereafter Ganpat with other co-sharers sold 5 marls of land out of total land vide sale deed No.180 dated 3.5.1969 to Ramnath son of Balwant. Thereafter legal heirs of Ganpat sold 3 marlas of land vide sale deed No.1048 dated 13.12.1976 to Rajinder son of Shadi Ram. Ganpat was having 1/8th share which comes to around 7 marlas. Hence, it has been
-4-
Civil Revision No.4988 of 2010 (O&M)
rightly observed by learned first appellate court that present petitionersplaintiffs are left with no share in the land in the dispute
In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned appellate Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.
Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:-
devoid of any merit.
However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to have any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court.
19.8.2011
meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 permits re-appreciation of evidence to correct errors of fact found by the appellate court.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the interim injunction cause the grave injustice or gross failure of justice required for High Court interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maharwal Khewaji Trust (regd.) Faridkot v. Baldev DassReferred¶23
Maharwal Khewaji Trust (regd.) Faridkot v. Baldev Dass, 2005 AIR (SC) 104 · Who else cites this
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and othersApplied¶35
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675: AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Udai Singh and others
Mahabir and others
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
